Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Ann Coulter Is An Idiot

Ann Coulter, who fancies herself a GOP cover girl of sorts, has written a line in her new book which is simply stunning in its insensitivity. She is referring to the 9/11 widows:

These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzies. I have never seen people enjoying their husbands’ death so much.

When taken to task for the line by Matt Lauer on the Today Show, she dug in deeper (video here):

LAUER: Do you believe everything in the book or do you put some things in there just to cater to your base? ANN: No, of course I believe everything. LAUER: On the 9-11 widows, an in particular a group that had been critical of the administration: “These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process.” And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about: “These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.” Because they dare to speak out? COULTER: To speak out using the fact they are widows. This is the left’s doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9-11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to. No. No. No. We have to respond to someone who had a family member die. Because then if we respond, oh you are questioning their authenticity. LAUER: So grieve but grieve quietly? COULTER: No, the story is an attack on the nation. That requires a foreign policy response. LAUER: By the way, they also criticized the Clinton administration. COULTER: Not the ones I am talking about. No, no, no. LAUER: Yeah they have. COULTER: Oh no, no, no, no, no. They were cutting commercials for Kerry. They were using their grief to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding. LAUER: So if you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a political point of view? COULTER: No, but don’t use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for being able to talk about, while preventing people from responding. Let Matt Lauer make the point. Let Bill Clinton make the point. Don’t put up someone I am not allowed to respond to without questioning the authenticity of their grief. LAUER: Well apparently you are allowed to respond to them. COULTER: Yeah, I did. LAUER: So, in other words. COULTER: That is the point of liberal infallibility. Of putting up Cindy Sheehan, of putting out these widows, of putting out Joe Wilson. No, no, no. You can’t respond. It’s their doctrine of infallibility. Have someone else make the argument then.LAUER: What I’m saying is I don’t think they have ever told you, you can’t respond.COULTER: Look, you are getting testy with me.LAUER: No. I think it’s a dramatic statement. “These broads are millionaires stalked by stalked by grief-parazzies”? “I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s deaths so much”?COULTER: Yes, they are all over the news.LAUER: The book is called “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” Ann Coulter, always fun to have you here.

So let me get this straight. Ann Coulter is unhappy with the 9/11 widows, because they are using their grief to make a political point, so she criticizes them in order to make a political point.

I am ill.

I would have to imagine she doesn't consider herself one of those "compassionate conservatives" we've been hearing about.

I'd like to know how much money the 9/11 widows donated for the 2004 Tsunami or Katrina victims. I donated as much as I could, but I'm not a millionaire. It doesn't look like the U.S. government is going to give the families of the Katrina victims millions of dollars anytime soon.

Anyway, to be fair, some of these widows do seem to enjoying themselves a little bit too much -- almost as much as Lisa Beamer. Do you remember when she wanted to copyright "Let's Roll" -- Ka-ching! The fact that her husband spent the last 45 minutes of his life talking to a Sprint operator, instead of his wife, speaks volumes about what he thought of her.

"So let me get this straight. Ann Coulter is unhappy with the 9/11 widows, because they are using their grief to make a political point..."

OM, while I think her tone is disgusting ("broads," etc.), I think her point was not just that these women are "using their grief to make a political point," but that they are acting "infallible," as if they can do or say no wrong, holding up the fact that their loved ones died on 9/11 as a shield to do or say whatever they want. Which is no crime of course, but I can see how it can come across as using grief and the tragedy of 9-11 for political (or even personal) gain.

Anyway, to be fair, some of these widows do seem to enjoying themselves a little bit too much -- almost as much as Lisa Beamer. Do you remember when she wanted to copyright "Let's Roll" -- Ka-ching! The fact that her husband spent the last 45 minutes of his life talking to a Sprint operator, instead of his wife, speaks volumes about what he thought of her.

Ugh. You're almost as bad as she is.

Rowr! It's always about Ann's appearance with some people.

You're so right. There are no points in this post about anything but catty attacks on Ann's apearance.

OM, while I think her tone is disgusting ("broads," etc.), I think her point was not just that these women are "using their grief to make a political point," but that they are acting "infallible," as if they can do or say no wrong, holding up the fact that their loved ones died on 9/11 as a shield to do or say whatever they want. Which is no crime of course, but I can see how it can come across as using grief and the tragedy of 9-11 for political (or even personal) gain.

As I said. Her remarks are incredibly insensitive, in both tone and implication. Who said they act "infallible"? You? Ann Coulter? Clearly she feels no taboo against criticizing their good name. So I'm not sure how in the world their loss somehow taints them as being capable of speaking their mind. Absurd.

Who said they act "infallible"? You? Ann Coulter? Clearly she feels no taboo against criticizing their good name. So I'm not sure how in the world their loss somehow taints them as being capable of speaking their mind. Absurd.

But isn't that her point? Your reaction to it is basically "how can Ann Coulter attack these poor 9/11 widows!?".

I may not agree with the way she said it, but her point is solid: The left seems to continually use people such as (say) Cindy Sheehan as their spokespeople because they are viewed as people who can't be touched by criticism due to the tragedies they've experienced. Sheehan was basically martyred by the press for months despite saying some of the most ridiculous and anti-Semitic rhetoric well beyond your average leftist.

Coulter in her book is trying to point out that people can't criticize these women without getting put down as insensitive. She then gets put down as insensitive for saying it. I think this is proving her point.

Coulter in her book is trying to point out that people can't criticize these women without getting put down as insensitive. She then gets put down as insensitive for saying it.

Ezzie, you are waaay off here. She is getting put down because she is phrasing her point in the most disgusting and insensitive manner in order to make a partisan point about "liberals". Period. She is displaying a level of inhumanity that is really hard to believe.

The amazing part is that Matt Lauer gave her the chance to take the high ground when he told her that many of the widows spoke out against Bill Clinton. Instead of taking the opportunity to say that her point still stood, regardless of the politics of the widows, she refused to accept that "the ones she was talking about" ever did any criticizing of the Clinton administration. Face it, Ezzie. You picked a loser here.

Ezzie, you are waaay off here. She is getting put down because she is phrasing her point in the most disgusting and insensitive manner

That's fair. But I don't think that that's her main point: Her main point is one that many others have made about the way the left uses many of these widows. I'm not defending the way Coulter said what she did - but this line: Ann Coulter is unhappy with the 9/11 widows, because they are using their grief to make a political point, so she criticizes them in order to make a political point. proves her other point. You cannot attack the widows politically without being accused of insensitivity - and that's problematic.

I also don't get what the Clinton part had to do with anything: Coulter specifically answers, "Not the ones I'm talking about." She's referring to the ones who are going out of their way to use their grief to attack the Bush administration [and advertise for Kerry] and are being shielded by the concept of infallibility that grief-stricken people receive.

I also don't get what the Clinton part had to do with anything: Coulter specifically answers, "Not the ones I'm talking about." She's referring to the ones who are going out of their way to use their grief to attack the Bush administration [and advertise for Kerry] and are being shielded by the concept of infallibility that grief-stricken people receive.

That has everything to do with it! She is only referring to the ones who are shilling for Kerry and attack the Bush administration?? The ones who attack the Clinton administration shouldn't be "shielded by the concept of infallibility that grief-stricken people receive?" This is so partisan that it's scary.

You cannot attack the widows politically without being accused of insensitivity - and that's problematic.

Um..yes you can. You can attack them politically. By doing just that - not the name-calling that Coulter seems to favor. She should try it sometime. I understand it makes people actually take you seriously.

Ezzie, you can't be serious. Becuase if you are, you must be taking money from Ann.

I may not agree with the way she said it, but her point is solid".

Ezzie, that may be your point, but I think Ann can speak for herself. She said:

"I have never seen people enjoying their husbands’ death so much."

There. She is saying that the widows - people who have suffered unimaginable tragedy - are enjoyed their husbands' death. Remember this is not some offhand remark but something she wrote in a book (or column).

Why is it that Ann Coulter always seems to be the victim of having her words "taken out of context"? Why does she always seem to benefit from having the most offensive, horrendous comments be written off as her "style" or her "the way she said it" rather than her content (which people like Ezzie always seem to get)? And more importnantly, why does it matter? Even if this statement (and others like it) are merely her "style", it is so odious as to render any "point" hidden within it without any redeeming quality.

And what do you think is her point?

Coulter in her book is trying to point out that people can't criticize these women without getting put down as insensitive. She then gets put down as insensitive for saying it. I think this is proving her point.

Wrong and wrong. First she does not say that "people can't criticize these women without getting put down as insensitive.". What she is suggesting is that these widows should simply not be given a political voice period (I wonder if she applies the same rule to widows who support the president. Do you, Ezzie?). And what orthomom (and anyone else whose brain has not been addled by the GOP Kool Aid) finds insensitive is the language is the horrible, nasty, meanspiritied, hurtful passage quoted above. Sorry Ezzie for the harshness but your comment deserves it.

That has everything to do with it! She is only referring to the ones who are shilling for Kerry and attack the Bush administration?? The ones who attack the Clinton administration shouldn't be "shielded by the concept of infallibility that grief-stricken people receive?" This is so partisan that it's scary.

Huh? She's saying that the ones who are being shielded are on the left attacking the right. The ones who are attacking everyone are simply lashing out in grief, not trying to make a political point per se...

Um..yes you can. You can attack them politically. By doing just that - not the name-calling that Coulter seems to favor. She should try it sometime. I understand it makes people actually take you seriously.

Agreed. However, those who attacked them without the name-calling were similarly attacked for insensitivity etc.

There. She is saying that the widows - people who have suffered unimaginable tragedy - are enjoyed their husbands' death. Remember this is not some offhand remark but something she wrote in a book (or column).

I think she's referring to items like this, even if not this one exactly.

Why is it that Ann Coulter always seems to be the victim of having her words "taken out of context"? Why does she always seem to benefit from having the most offensive, horrendous comments be written off as her "style" or her "the way she said it" rather than her content (which people like Ezzie always seem to get)? And more importnantly, why does it matter? Even if this statement (and others like it) are merely her "style", it is so odious as to render any "point" hidden within it without any redeeming quality.

Huh? Nobody [here] is excusing her remarks or saying they're out of context. I'm arguing that regardless of how idiotic she said it, the point behind it is still worthy of discussion.

What she is suggesting is that these widows should simply not be given a political voice period

No, she's quite specific about their infallibility.

(I wonder if she applies the same rule to widows who support the president. Do you, Ezzie?). And what orthomom (and anyone else whose brain has not been addled by the GOP Kool Aid) finds insensitive is the language is the horrible, nasty, meanspiritied, hurtful passage quoted above. Sorry Ezzie for the harshness but your comment deserves it.

And here you just sink into empty rhetoric, which is below you. I don't think anything I said "deserved" the DB "GOP Kool Aid" crap.

Huh? She's saying that the ones who are being shielded are on the left attacking the right. The ones who are attacking everyone are simply lashing out in grief, not trying to make a political point per se...

There were 9/11 widows that endorsed BUsh. I believe some of them spoke at the convention. Oh, but they were "shielded" so its ok.

Huh? She's saying that the ones who are being shielded are on the left attacking the right. The ones who are attacking everyone are simply lashing out in grief, not trying to make a political point per se...

Um..no. She is saying that the ones that are being shielded on the right don't interest her. I guess in her bizarro world, only evil liberals are"enjoying their husband's death" when they choose to exercise their freedom of expression. Conservative 9/11 widows who choose to use their political voice are perfectly entitled to do so, on the other hand.

Agreed. However, those who attacked them without the name-calling were similarly attacked for insensitivity etc.

Not by me. I call them as I see them. Ann Coulter is indefensible in her headline-seeking, attention - starved, partisan behavior.

I'm arguing that regardless of how idiotic she said it, the point behind it is still worthy of discussion.

Ezzie, I think I was pretty clear here in my introduction to this post. And I quote:

Ann Coulter, who fancies herself a GOP cover girl of sorts, has written a line in her new book which is simply stunning in its insensitivity.

She has exhibited herself to be a reprehensible person. I would be happy to attack the 9/11 widow's politics if I saw fit - and if that were even in discussion here. It isn't. What's in discussion is whether Ann Coulter is a vile person. Which she, quite clearly, is.

She is saying that the ones that are being shielded on the right don't interest her.

You're misrepresenting them. They're not on the right: They attacked Bush AND Clinton. Those aren't the people she's talking about, because they're obviously not making a political point.

I guess in her bizarro world, only evil liberals are"enjoying their husband's death" when they choose to exercise their freedom of expression.

Check my link from above.

Conservative 9/11 widows who choose to use their political voice are perfectly entitled to do so, on the other hand.

Again, show me how they are being shielded the way those on the left are.

Not by me. I call them as I see them. Ann Coulter is indefensible in her headline-seeking, attention - starved, partisan behavior.

Fair enough, but your line should have said that and not: Ann Coulter is unhappy with the 9/11 widows, because they are using their grief to make a political point, so she criticizes them in order to make a political point.

Fair enough, but your line should have said that and not: Ann Coulter is unhappy with the 9/11 widows, because they are using their grief to make a political point, so she criticizes them in order to make a political point.

Um, no. My point with that line was to showcase her vileness. She doesn't like the fact that the 9/11 widows are, in her opinion, shielded, so she attacks them in the most reprehensible of manners just to make a political point. Would she say about ANYONE on the right, EVER, that they are "enjoying their husbands' deaths"? Of course not. No matter what they might say. Because she is only doing this for political purposes. Lovely.

Oh, and Ezzie? I don't even think her point is valid. She isn't taking as much issue with their politics here as she is criticizing them for what she seems to feel is their selfishness as in this choice quote:

These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony.

Um, where are the politics in that phrase? All I see is a sick, twisted, person talking. As I said above. She makes me ill.

Careful who you ally yourself with, Ezzie. There are many miserable people out there who say one or two things that I might find myself agreeing with. The difference is, I wouldn't publicize it when that happens. It takes away your credibility.

Ezzie, here is my problem. As I said above, you (and other conservatives) manage to only see what you view as Ann's point while completely overlooking what Ann actually says. Case in point -- while OM's charge of insensitivity was clearly aimed at Ann's offensive remarks regarding the widows "enjoying" their tragedy (it's quoted at the beginning or her post), you interpreted her post as attacking Ann for charging the widows with immunizing themselves from criticism. Her point was so obvious yet you didn't see it.

It's wrong to look past her offesnive remarks and focusing on what you view as her "point," and if you choose to do so, at the very least you should denounce those remarks. A tepid "I may not agree with the way she said it" will not do.

My point with that line was to showcase her vileness. She doesn't like the fact that the 9/11 widows are, in her opinion, shielded, so she attacks them in the most reprehensible of manners just to make a political point.

Got it. Add the words "in the most reprehensible of manners" in that line, and it makes it a lot more clear.

Careful who you ally yourself with, Ezzie.

Careful with who you assume are my allies. I've said a number of times in this thread that I'm *not* defending Coulter's remarks.

The difference is, I wouldn't publicize it when that happens. It takes away your credibility.

I [generally] agree or disagree with the substance of remarks, not by blindingly agreeing or disagreeing with the people. If I agree with a point, I'm not going to lie about it - dishonesty ruins credibility a lot faster.

I do *not* agree with Coulter's remarks. I *do* agree that people on the left disgustingly used some widows for political purposes counting on their ability to be shielded as widows, such as Cindy Sheehan. I'm not sure why this is unclear.

It's wrong to look past her offesnive remarks and focusing on what you view as her "point," and if you choose to do so, at the very least you should denounce those remarks. A tepid "I may not agree with the way she said it" will not do.

I said countless times in this thread that I didn't agree with her remarks. I don't feel the need to make a grandiose statement.

Case in point -- while OM's charge of insensitivity was clearly aimed at Ann's offensive remarks regarding the widows "enjoying" their tragedy (it's quoted at the beginning or her post), you interpreted her post as attacking Ann for charging the widows with immunizing themselves from criticism. Her point was so obvious yet you didn't see it.

It wasn't "clearly" aimed, because her sum-up did NOT say that Coulter's remarks were problematic because of HOW she said it, but rather because of WHAT she said. I'll repeat: She wrote "Ann Coulter is unhappy with the 9/11 widows, because they are using their grief to make a political point, so she criticizes them in order to make a political point." If she wanted to be more clear, she should have added "...criticizes them in a reprehensible fashion in order to make a political point.

I said countless times in this thread that I didn't agree with her remarks. I don't feel the need to make a grandiose statement.

Depending on who the target is, I guess. You seem perfectly capable of "making grandiose statements" aout liberal 9/11 widows. But you seem incapable in denouncing Anne Coulter other than saying you don't agree.

It wasn't "clearly" aimed, because her sum-up did NOT say that Coulter's remarks were problematic because of HOW she said it, but rather because of WHAT she said.

And herein lies the problem. What is your basis for saying that her statement "I have never seen people enjoying their husbands’ death so much" does not constitute "what" she said but rather "how she said it"? You are engaging in hair splitting and using OM's failure to engage in the same kind of hair splitting as rendering her point unclear or ambiguous.

Ezzie, I'm sorry. I just have to disagree with you here. I don't think anyone missed my point but you. Coulter is a nasty person who will do anything to make a political point, to the point of claiming that widows are happy to have their husbands dead because it makes them millionaires. Your attempts to weed her nastiness out to glean a debatable and meaningless political point (are the 9/11 widows the only ones criticizing the Bush administration? I think not) just makes you look very very partisan. Seriously.

The real issue....and I want to start this by saying that Ann should retract those words about the 9-11 widows...is that Coulter makes her living by saying libs use a tactic that cons cant use...she then uses that very tactic that she says Cons cant use and gets attacked by the libs for doing it...Which just proves her point. I thought the libs had that figured out about coulter by now.

Depending on who the target is, I guess. But you seem incapable in denouncing Anne Coulter other than saying you don't agree.

I don't see you putting anyone on the left over the coals, either. I said I disagreed, I think that's enough. If you have a problem with that, that's just too bad.

You are engaging in hair splitting and using OM's failure to engage in the same kind of hair splitting as rendering her point unclear or ambiguous.

Yes, exactly. Broad statements are often unclear and need to be qualified, as I think OM's is. Clearly, it doesn't read as talking about the reprehensive nature of her comment but rather the substance of it. OM said in the comments she meant [primarily] the reprehensive nature. If that's all she meant and had written that, there would be very few comments here.

Meanwhile, Coulter took a good point and ruined it with rhetoric. I'm taking out the rhetoric, which I disagree with, and noting the good point.

Your attempts to weed her nastiness out to glean a debatable and meaningless political point (are the 9/11 widows the only ones criticizing the Bush administration? I think not) just makes you look very very partisan. Seriously.

That's ridiculous - you note above that everyone makes points you agree with. I note all the time when people who I disagree with make good points (check the comments on JAJC if you'd like), and because here I'm doing so by Coulter I'm partisan!?

We all tend to defend those who we more generally agree with more often. As long as we're honest about when they're wrong and when those we disagree with are right, we're not "partisan". I think I do both of those, and I think you do as well. I'm a bit surprised at the "partisan. Seriously." remark, as I was when Krum did the "GOP Kool Aid" comment. You two are normally above the fray.

The real issue....and I want to start this by saying that Ann should retract those words about the 9-11 widows...is that Coulter makes her living by saying libs use a tactic that cons cant use...she then uses that very tactic that she says Cons cant use and gets attacked by the libs for doing it...Which just proves her point. I thought the libs had that figured out about coulter by now.

Heh - looks like I'm not the only one to understand the post that way... :)

What are you referring to exactly? My blog? When do I ever put U.S. political figure -- left or right -- over the coals? My blog generally doesn't touch that.

I said I disagreed, I think that's enough. If you have a problem with that, that's just too bad.

The fact that you are glad to leave it at that speaks volumes, unfortunately, and seriously damages your credibility. Your seeming incapability to denounce wrongful behavior for no apparent reason other than it comes from the right rather than the left nicely ilustrates why I stand by my "GOP Kool Aid" line.

I'm a bit surprised at the "partisan. Seriously." remark, as I was when Krum did the "GOP Kool Aid" comment. You two are normally above the fray.

I was seriously surprised to see you come here and defend any part of Ann Coulter's statement. I feel her comments were so beyond the pale that I don't think there was any way to find some baby in her dirty bathwater.

The fact that you are glad to leave it at that speaks volumes, unfortunately, and seriously damages your credibility. Your seeming incapability to denounce wrongful behavior for no apparent reason other than it comes from the right rather than the left nicely ilustrates why I stand by my "GOP Kool Aid" line.

That's ridiculous. I denounced it, several times.

Here:

1) I may not agree with the way she said it

2) I'm not defending the way Coulter said what she did

3) OM: not the name-calling that Coulter seems to favor. She should try it sometime. I understand it makes people actually take you seriously.

Me: Agreed.

4) Nobody [here] is excusing her remarks or saying they're out of context.

I was seriously surprised to see you come here and defend any part of Ann Coulter's statement. I feel her comments were so beyond the pale that I don't think there was any way to find some baby in her dirty bathwater.

I actually didn't come to do that. I only commented when I noticed you discuss the infallible point in the comments (near the top). Go check. :)

Ann Coulter proved what I have believed all along, she needs serious therapy. She made Tom Cruise look sane.

And what's with the Liberal media stuff. I'm a journalist, who is a registered independent. I voted for Bush 1. But not number II. I have worked in many newsrooms and I can assure you, there is "liberal bias".

I do think more news reporters (not the talking heads like O'Reily, etc. who are broadcasters, not journalist) are open minded. When you travel more than most, are forced to interview people outside of your comfort zone, you are more likely to observe the grey areas in life. You don't see life as Red or Blue, Black or White.

When you are open minded you listen to the other person's side. You won't always agree, but you hear it. Sometimes after hearing another point of view, you change your mind. Some call that flip-flopping. I consider that complex thinking.

Sometimes "staying the course" is just plain hard-headed.

Anyone who was being objective today must admit that Ann came off like an idiot. A hateful, nasty, idiot.

I actually didn't come to do that. I only commented when I noticed you discuss the infallible point in the comments (near the top). Go check. :)

Yes, and in case I didn't mention that, you were wrong on that point as well. No one here said the widows are infallible. No one here is defending the 9/11 widows' political points. All I see is Ann Coulter saying the widows are money-grubbing "broads" who enjoy their husbands' deaths. So your whole premise here (that I am doing exactly what Coulter is referring to) is erroneous.

I am not defending the 9/11 widows' politics out of sympathy for their loss. I am defending their right, as humans, to be referred to on national television with some small modicum of respect and decency.

Ann Coulter is an entertainer. Period. I think "vile" is a little strong a word to use in Howard Stern's home state, but that's a matter of opinion. The fact that politics is her forum for entertainment does not change her role in the least. She is booked on talk shows not because she presents well-reasoned arguments, but because she's a spectacle.

Now, you may take whatever amount of offense you want at any given statement of Ms. Coulter's, and if you've read her books, you'll find plenty of outrageous things that qualify. But you must judge the offensiveness in context with other entertainers, not with serious political analysts. So, yes, this seems over-the-top even for Ms. Coulter, but if we started listing everything "vile" or "offensive" that surfaces under the guise of entertainment, Ms. Coulter would be pretty low on the list.

In fact, she's carved out a pretty good niche for herself. By saying nasty things in the formerly staid political commentary arena, she can make more money and garner more attention than she ever could have had as a D-list starlet *or* a serious political scholar.

She is saying that the widows - people who have suffered unimaginable tragedy - are enjoyed their husbands' death

No doubt, some are glad to be rid of their spouses.

I also notice that none of the them refused the millions of dollars from the U.S government. It's safe to assume that the white collar workforce who perished that day had life insurance. Why on earth do they deserve a jackpot on top of that?

"Money-grubbing broads" is not how most of us would phrase it (unless, like Ann, we're earning *a lot* of money to do so!).

Underneath her hyperbole, though, is the reality that the most visible widows are mainly upper-middle-class women from New Jersey. Their ranks seem only sparsely populated by the working-class widows and widowers who also lost spouses that day.

I think some of the widows' groups have to be very, very careful in how they communicate their messages. They run a serious risk, which Ms. Coulter has seized upon, of sounding like whiny girls who are shocked -- just shocked -- that really, really bad things can happen to nice, well-to-do, white people like them.

That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong; it just means that they have a significant rhetorical challenge that I have a feeling they don't quite understand and which will ultimately compromise their political effectiveness among people more thoughtful and influential than Ann.

FYI, I read in the WSJ at the time that there were only 3 families that refused the cash settlement offered because they felt it was unnecessary. An additional handful declined to participate in order to pursue their own lawsuits.

I'll add that nobody really takes Ann seriously as a conservative thinker, even if she tends to be right most of the time. And yeah, she's way over-the-top. But the fact is, her books are funny as hell. That's why she sells millions of them.

IT ISN'T FUNNY TO SAY WIDOWS WHO LOST THEIR HUSBANDS TO 9/11 TERRORIST ATTACKS ARE ENJOYING THEIR HUSBANDS DEATH. THIS BEARS STATING IN ALL CAPS, BECAUSE APPARENTLY SOME OF YOU CAN'T GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS TO YOUR PEA BRAINS.

...and apparently, some people can't understand the difference between "Ann is funny as hell" and "saying that widows enjoyed their husbands' death is funny." Shall I put it in caps, or can you understand the smaller letters?

I wonder how many of the Coulter bashers here have actually read any of her books. Not many, I'm betting.

Ah, well. Perhaps our "pea brains" are addled by such concepts as literary language and usage, in which "enjoying" does not necessarily mean "feeling happy," but can also mean the act of drawing out a situation to reap the most benefit.

BTW, this is not an idea Ms. Coulter thought of herself. Mark Twain's famous passage in which Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn attend their own funeral comes immediately to mind, as does Oscar Wilde's assertion about an orphan that "losing one parent is a tragedy; losing two seems like carelessness." The literature scholars among us can probably cite examples going back to the Greeks and Romans.

Ann Coulter is not saying that these women are happy their husbands are dead; she is saying that they are drawing out their mourning for maximum benefit. Now, you may still argue that her words were poorly chosen because many people in Mr. Lauer's audience do not understand multiple meanings of "enjoy". Likewise, you may believe she is simply wrong. Both of these are defensible positions.

Her book-buying audience, however, understands perfectly what she is saying, and frankly, feels a little embarrassed for those who get riled up because they understand language in a lowest-common-denominator kind of way.

Whether you like her or not, Ann Coulter's writing is hilarious *and* it requires a reader to pay real attention. She mixes a somewhat literary voice with legal citations and historical references.

I agree with you, Jak: most of her most vocal critics have not read any of her books or columns. But that's okay. They're probably too busy writing to Dave Barry to inform him that the Leaning Tower of Pisa is not really in Paris.

Her book-buying audience, however, understands perfectly what she is saying, and frankly, feels a little embarrassed for those who get riled up because they understand language in a lowest-common-denominator kind of way.

Ezz, have you ever actually seen her on TV? I think I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't own one. ;)

And no, I am not interested in reading her books, because I can be sufficiently nauseated by accidentally seeing her on TV, and if I'm going to read, it's going to be something productive, like a blog about... oh, wait...

Obviously not your blog. I'm talking about comments - you were happy to join in here to rank on Coulter, but I don't see you do the same to those who make moronic statements on the left.

Actually, wrong again. I only decided to step in after you commented. And, believe it or not, I find toxic rhetoric like Anne's to be wrong wherever it comes from. While I agreed with om's post I saw no need to pile on until you defended Anne's "point."

And to all of you Anne Coulter apologists out there, who are sophisticated enough to recognize that she is just an entertainer, I will keep these comments in mind next time you get all bent out of shape by the next Al Franken book or Michael Moore movie.

NO, the 9/11 widows serve a very important political purpose. They prevent those opposed to them from emotionally exploiting 9/11 by assuming that all the survivors agree with them. They force those opposed to them to make the foreign policy argument. The 9/11 widows also got us the 9/11 Commission, which is related simply to competence in government.

I am not defending the 9/11 widows' politics out of sympathy for their loss. I am defending their right, as humans, to be referred to on national television with some small modicum of respect and decency.

I only joined in the comments to point out how people use the widows to speak because they're viewed as infallible, people who can't be argued with simply because of their tragic losses. You (and Krum) are welcome to disagree, but don't make it sound like I'm somehow partisan for doing so.

And, believe it or not, I find toxic rhetoric like Anne's to be wrong wherever it comes from.

I'm sure you do. But I don't see you making the grandiose comments you wished me to make here in those cases. Therefore, I find it unreasonable of you to expect the same of me here, particularly after I'd already denounced Coulter a dozen times in the comments.

I will keep these comments in mind next time you get all bent out of shape by the next Al Franken book or Michael Moore movie.

The difference is that Al Franken and Michael Moore have negligible entertainment value.

Which reminds me - I read Franken's "Lies," and was greatly impressed with the two and a half supposed factual errors that he and his 15 research assistants were able to come up with in Ann's books. Critics dig up more dirt on the Bible.

Jak, you and I must be missing the argument, which seems to be that because Ann Coulter's "performance art" in the service of selling books doesn't offend us enough, we should A) be more offended by Ann Coulter; and B) simultaneously be more offended by Al Franken and Michael Moore. Did anyone mention being offended by Al or Michael? I did allude to being offended more by Howard Stern than by Ann Coulter, but no one seems to have stepped up to defend him.

So what's the scoop? I usually find Ann's TV appearances to be relatively obnoxious, especially when compared to her books, but Al Franken and Michael Moore always seem pretty tame. Am I supposed to get more upset at Ann and then balance it out by getting more upset with Al and Michael?

Wait! Is "not being easily offended by entertainers who deal in hyperbole" one of my choices? No, apparently not. I don't necessarily like the way Ann behaves to promote herself, and I sure wouldn't want my daughter to emulate her. But being invited to join the class of the permanently aggrieved -- constantly on the alert for potential offense -- holds even less appeal.

There *are* people who do not like satire or hyperbole, and Disgusted Conservative is absolutely right to call me on intellectual snobbery. It really *isn't* a moral failing to have a distaste for such work. But I would give such individuals some advice: if you don't like heat, *please* stay out of the kitchen. Don't listen to or read Ann Coulter, P.J. O'Rourke, Christopher Buckley, Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde, Jonathan Swift, . . .

So what's the scoop? I usually find Ann's TV appearances to be relatively obnoxious, especially when compared to her books, but Al Franken and Michael Moore always seem pretty tame.

In all honesty, I haven't seen a single one of them on TV, as I don't own one. But I have read all of Ann's books, as well as some of Franken's and Moore's, and I judge them by the worth of their works.

Frankly, there doesn't seem to be much difference between the way people describe her on TV, and the personality that shines through from her books. As you said, if you don't like hyperbole, biting wit and gobs of cynicism, you should probably stay away.

It really *isn't* a moral failing to have a distaste for such work.

True. However, it is a moral failing to be unwilling to look the truth squarely in the eye. At the very least such squeamishness will cause failure down the road, even if only of nerve. Kirk writes, "In our age, good-natured ignorance is a luxury none of us can afford." I would add that good-natured pandering is nearly as damaging to the conservative cause. As I pointed out above, Ann's critics haven't been all that successful in pointing out her factual errors.

So she's funny as hell, and almost always correct. What's not to like? That others can't see the truth even when it's thrust under their noses means little to me. What do you expect of people whose political education consists of reading the back flaps of Michael Moore's books in line at the grocery? Is it snobbery to not take seriously the political opinions of these proletarians? Possibly. But I'd rather err on the side of snobbery than stupidity.

I'm sure you do. But I don't see you making the grandiose comments you wished me to make here in those cases. Therefore, I find it unreasonable of you to expect the same of me here, particularly after I'd already denounced Coulter a dozen times in the comments.

I don't expect anyone to be trolling the blogosphere looking to denounce people. When you go out of your way to defend one part of Ann's comments, I expect you not to overlook the "reprehensive" part.

And, I hate to be nitpicky here, but no, I don't think you denounced Ann's comment in this thread. Saying "I'm not defending" her or that "I don't agree with her" is not denouncing her statement. I didn't agree with may wife the other day when she made me wear a certain shirt. That doesn't mean I thought her statement to be reprehensible (the shirt on the other hand...)

Ann Coulter is funny? This is a matter of opinion. But even if we all agree she's funny, so what? Some claim that all humor is hostile. I completely disagree, but it does seem true that hostility makes it easy to be funny. Think of movie reviews you might have read over the years. Which were the funny ones? We've all had the experience (at least I have) of seeing some joker entertaining everyone with a lot of malicious ipecac.

My only claim here is the fact (or opinion) that Coulter is funny is absolutely irrelevant. I'm not saying that all humor is reprehensible; I'm only saying that the fact that something is funny tells us nothing about whether it's reprehensible, or even about whether it's clever.

Some people who don't like Coulter haven't read her books? I know this is true, because I am such a person. But why should I read her stuff? The world is full of interesting books that a person actually wants to read, and we don't have time for all of them. Why should we waste that time reading something we expect to be an annoying waste of time? I anticipate that Coulter's books would be an annoying waste of time for me.

Not having read her stuff, is it OK to have an opinion about her, and is it OK for me to tell people that opinion? Within some limits, yes. Before I go any further, let me make it clear that I'm not likening Coulter to Stalin in any way (except, of course, that they both have that tselem Elokim thing). The catalog of a large library near my workplace 546 items listed for Stalin as subject and 174 with Stalin as author. There's probably some overlap between the two categories, and there are probably items listed that are different editions or translations of a given work. Let's make a conservative and modest estimate that there are at least 100 unique items listed. I haven't gone through the lists, but I probably haven't read any of them. Should I not have an opinion about Stalin? All I know about him is what I've read in media reports (and we know how reliable they are) and what I've heard.

I'll repeat that I'm not likening Coulter to Stalin.

If I am allowed to have an opinion on Stalin, why not on Coulter? In fact, it makes more sense for to have an opinion on Coulter than it does to have one on Stalin. My complaint against Stalin (dang, my opinion has come out) has to do with what he allegedly did, and I believe the allegations. My complaint against Coulter has to do with what she says. I haven't read serious documentation about what Stalin did. For what Coulter says, I don't need documentation--I can see it for myself by going to her web site or going to a TV.

In summary: Coulter may or may not be funny, but so what? And I haven't read her stuff, but so what?

If we're trying to decide Ann's merit as a political scientist, then yes, the question of humor is irrelevant. But if we're trying to assess her value as an entertainer, then I'd guess that her humor is directly relevant. The point some made above is that Ann (as well as most modern political pundits) are really little more than entertainers. As an entertainer, she may be somewhat over-the-top in her humor. But nevertheless, you can hardly look at her and say that she is reprehensible, merely that you think her humor is in poor taste.

And I haven't read her stuff, but so what?

So nothing. Join the millions of other people in the world who have opinions on matters about which they understand not a wit. True, you don't have to be an expert in Stalin to know something about him. But I sure hope your opinion doesn't exceed the parameters of your knowledge.

Of course, you have a right to your opinion in any matter. There are people who are of the opinion that we never traveled to the moon. Just don't expect someone that actually knows about the issue to take you seriously.

But nevertheless, you can hardly look at her and say that she is reprehensible, merely that you think her humor is in poor taste.

Well, I didn't call her reprehensible (and you didn't say I did). I said that humor can be reprehensible, and that humor doesn't make reprehensibility OK. But of course I can call her reprehensible. And she is.

Join the millions of other people in the world who have opinions on matters about which they understand not a wit.

There are millions of things that I "understand not a wit" about; I may even be a half-whit. How much of an expert on Coulter do you have to be to have an opinion on her? Especially if she's just an entertainer? Her web site (but maybe she's misquoted there and taken out of context) and media reports convince me that she is reprehensible. Since I haven't read her books, I have no opinion on whether she's part of the same exalted literary tradition as Mark Twain. I doubt that she is, but I don't really know.

Of course, you have a right to your opinion in any matter. There are people who are of the opinion that we never traveled to the moon. Just don't expect someone that actually knows about the issue to take you seriously.

Whether we traveled to the moon is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. I'll defer to the experts. Whether Coulter is funny, reprehensible, a looker--these are matters of opinion. I'm glad I had a chance to explain this.

How much of an expert on Coulter do you have to be to have an opinion on her?

I dunno. Maybe...reading at least one of her books?

Whether we traveled to the moon is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. I'll defer to the experts. Whether Coulter is funny, reprehensible, a looker--these are matters of opinion. I'm glad I had a chance to explain this.

The point is that people have opinions about matters that they know nothing about - even (!) when the matter is an objective fact that cannot be disputed. If you want to join the legion of the clueless, go right ahead. Glad I had a chance to explain this.

Jak black:I really don't want to waste more time on her, but just a few final words. She may be entertaining. She may be smart. Hell, you can make whatever case you want. She may even have a point regarding the fact that the 9/11 widows are not unassailable when it comes to criticizing them. But I don't really give a damn about all of those possibilities. She lost me when she lost any shred of human decency.

With all due respect, it doesn't surprise me that a liberal is repulsed by Ann Coulter. Face it - you don't like her because she tells the truth, and some truths are cold and hard. If liberals could deal with the truth...they wouldn't be liberals in the first place.

With all due respect, it doesn't surprise me that a liberal is repulsed by Ann Coulter. Face it - you don't like her because she tells the truth, and some truths are cold and hard. If liberals could deal with the truth...they wouldn't be liberals in the first place.

With all due respect, you're waaay off base here. Face it - I don't like Ann Coulter because she is a bigot and a terrible human being. This is not the first time she has been quoted as saying something reprehensible, the "raghead" kerfuffle where even Michelle Malkin was forced to distance herself from Coulter is just one example. Coulter goes way too far beyond the pale of decency when she pulls her attention-grabbing shenanigans. In my opinion, when you claim that widows are "harpies", "witches", are "enjoying their husbands' deaths" and "how do we know their husbands weren't planning on divorcing them", you give up your opportunity to have your statements considered on the merit of the underlying point. This comment re "liberals" shows you to be the partisan party-liner that I knew you were the second you started defending Coulter, and I have no interest in going further with this. Have a great day.

Get off your high horse. I defended Ann because she's entertaining, and makes excellent points, as I said. And the fact that you're a liberal has nothing to do with the fact that you despise her? Spare me.

If you can't laugh about the greatest city in the world and the greatest group of the people in the world being brutally attacked, without warning, by explosive airplanes; being burned to death; being trapped 100 floors above ground with no way out and smoke filling the corridors; if you can't laugh about the tragic phone calls home by trapped workers to leave a message of good-bye to those they love, knowing they were about to die; if you can't laugh about courageous firefighters, policemen, EMT workers willingly putting their lives in danger, in too many cases sacrificing themselves in trying to help others and do their jobs; if you cannot laugh about orphaned children and widowed spouses; if you can't laugh about a President who did nothing to help the people of his country; if you cannot laugh about the thought of thousands of Americans being incinerated; if you don't chuckle when you think of your neighbors leaping to their death to try to escape the searing flames at their back; if those things don't make you laugh, well, then ... you're not a neo-con.

There is no doubt in my mind, if they performed a CAT scan on this woman's brain, we would finally know what is wrong with her.

I know she THINKS she's a satirist, well....she's not. She's a disturbed individual who can dish it out but can't take it, but more importantly, she feeds off of insulting others and sending hate messages to all around her. That's her food. She needs mental help because she can't express herself unless she gets furiously angry and starts being verbally abusive. She needs to be in a mental hospital for observation and treatment and not in the media.

Why is Ann Coulter even on the news? She has never held any public office of any sort (that I am aware of)and every time she opens her mouth, she gets frazzled and has her facts wrong (Ex. Vietnam facts)She is in the same category as Howard Stern or Rosie O Donnell. Not at all someone we should listen to. What an Idiot. And, she looks like a broomstick with yellow straw hair. JEEZ.

Everyone knows Ann Coulter is an idiot-that's not in question. Trouble is she's an idiot that's outspoken. There's a reason you have two ears, two eyes and ONE mouth. If you can't say anything intelligent then don't say anything! For God's sake! She reminds me of another imbecile I ran across who was championing the intelligence of Sarah Palin! And you wouldn't believe the enthusiastic responses these fools gave. Fools of a feather, flock together.

READ THIS AND WATCH THE EPISODE!! She is an absolute fool and is ignorant beyond comprehension. For example, her interview on Real Time w Bill Maher- Bill stated that an Independent poll that took place in 2008 in the state of Pennsylvania showed 12% of ppl said they were "not ready for a black president". She was arguing that that is not a racist comment. Bill proceeded to say yes it is racist because 12% of these people simply didn't want a black person on air force one. The audience applauded Bill for setting her straight, but she interpreted the applause as actual audience members who were themselves racist ppl, she's clueless. Boo fox